Liberals - Is it ok to redistribute your GPA

Blockhead

Those of you for wealth redistribution, It should only be fair that students GPA's also be redsitributed. Right?

inmytree

Blockhead wrote:

Those of you for wealth redistribution, It should only be fair that students GPA's also be redsitributed. Right?

right...

Blockhead

inmytree wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

Those of you for wealth redistribution, It should only be fair that students GPA's also be redsitributed. Right?

right...

It's interesting how you take that sarcastic approach. Are you of the position that it's not fair with 'well because I worked for it and they didn't'. Surely you have a better argument for GPA redistribution not being fair?

_

Oh God... just when I thought I had heard the worst analogies ever... now I've heard everything. :roll:

gimmesometruth27

Blockhead wrote:

Those of you for wealth redistribution, It should only be fair that students GPA's also be redsitributed. Right?

when has gpa determined wealth earned? fact is, most employers do not even look at gpa when hiring....

poor analogy, try again.

also nobody here is advocating redistribution of wealth. we are advocating putting taxes on the wealthiest one percent to the clinton era levels, but of course you would never know that, since most of us have stated it repeatedly...

Blockhead

_ wrote:

Oh God... just when I thought I had heard the worst analogies ever... now I've heard everything. :roll:

How is GPA redistribution not similar to wealth redistribution? Helping people out that may not have been given the same advantages in life, or may have issues that make it more difficult for them to succeed in the setting?

The only real differences I see between the two is that 1 is finite (GPA) and it can have large implications for determining other outcomes, such as grad school. Although one could argue that for income too (whether you get invited to a certain country club, getting a certain credit card, investment opportunities, etc.) there are similar implications...

Blockhead

Obviously making another analogy. I forget how blunt and simple you have to be here in the Moving Train sometimes, sorry. Let's say you can inherit a GPA, and the same number of college kids (per capita) inherit their 4.0 as there are rich people (rich as defined by uncle sam) who inherited their wealth.

It is now okay to redistribute the GDP's of those people earning 4.0's? The bar will have to of course be lowered when people earning 3.5 and above no longer see the point of the extra effort. Hopefully we can eventually just give everyone degrees at birth by virtue of being born Americans and achieve true equality

polaris_x

how about this - you are stranded in a remote area with no chance of rescue for a while (months) ... someone kills a deer ... should he:

1. eat what he wants and let the rest go to waste?
2. share it with other stranded people?

_

Blockhead wrote:

_ wrote:

Oh God... just when I thought I had heard the worst analogies ever... now I've heard everything. :roll:

How is GPA redistribution not similar to wealth redistribution? Helping people out that may not have been given the same advantages in life, or may have issues that make it more difficult for them to succeed in the setting?

The only real differences I see between the two is that 1 is finite (GPA) and it can have large implications for determining other outcomes, such as grad school. Although one could argue that for income too (whether you get invited to a certain country club, getting a certain credit card, investment opportunities, etc.) there are similar implications...

GPA is a DESCRIPTION of one's performance in school. Money is a RESOURCE.

Blockhead

polaris_x wrote:

how about this - you are stranded in a remote area with no chance of rescue for a while (months) ... someone kills a deer ... should he:

1. eat what he wants and let the rest go to waste?
2. share it with other stranded people?

Start your own thread, your to simple for this one...

_

polaris_x wrote:

how about this - you are stranded in a remote area with no chance of rescue for a while (months) ... someone kills a deer ... should he:

1. eat what he wants and let the rest go to waste?
2. share it with other stranded people?

Excellent analogy. But, I agree with Blockhead: There's no room in this thread for things that make sense.

polaris_x

Blockhead wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

how about this - you are stranded in a remote area with no chance of rescue for a while (months) ... someone kills a deer ... should he:

1. eat what he wants and let the rest go to waste?
2. share it with other stranded people?

Start your own thread, your to simple for this one...

Blockhead

_ wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

how about this - you are stranded in a remote area with no chance of rescue for a while (months) ... someone kills a deer ... should he:

1. eat what he wants and let the rest go to waste?
2. share it with other stranded people?

Excellent analogy. But, I agree with Blockhead: There's no room in this thread for things that make sense.

SO tell me Why this analogy doesn't work?

JonnyPistachio

Ok, lets say one man is more endowed than another man...hmmm, should he chop off a few inches and give it to a less endowed man? I think this analogy is much more fitting.

polaris_x

if you have 18 letters in your name ... should you give some to people who have less?

_

_ wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

How is GPA redistribution not similar to wealth redistribution? Helping people out that may not have been given the same advantages in life, or may have issues that make it more difficult for them to succeed in the setting?

The only real differences I see between the two is that 1 is finite (GPA) and it can have large implications for determining other outcomes, such as grad school. Although one could argue that for income too (whether you get invited to a certain country club, getting a certain credit card, investment opportunities, etc.) there are similar implications...

GPA is a DESCRIPTION of one's performance in school. Money is a RESOURCE.

Here's a GPA analogy for you:

I have blonde hair & blue eyes, and they bring me a certain amount of privilge. Only a minority of people in this country have (natural ) blonde hair & blue eyes. My appearance is described on various documents, like my driver's license. "Redistributing" people's GPAs would be like "redistributing" the hair & eye colors on driver's licenses, saying some people have different appearances than they really have. But this isn't a redistribution of the attributes that bring me privilege - only a misrepresentation of them. If you wanted to affect resource allocation, you should change the system that privileges people with blonde hair & blue eyes - and good GPAs.

The analogous redistribution regarding money would be to lie on people's W-2s. You're still not redistributing the wealth; you're just redistributing the description of the wealth.

Blockhead

_ wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

_ wrote:

Oh God... just when I thought I had heard the worst analogies ever... now I've heard everything. :roll:

How is GPA redistribution not similar to wealth redistribution? Helping people out that may not have been given the same advantages in life, or may have issues that make it more difficult for them to succeed in the setting?

The only real differences I see between the two is that 1 is finite (GPA) and it can have large implications for determining other outcomes, such as grad school. Although one could argue that for income too (whether you get invited to a certain country club, getting a certain credit card, investment opportunities, etc.) there are similar implications...

GPA is a DESCRIPTION of one's performance in school. Money is a RESOURCE.

GPA is an idication of performance, Wealth is an indication of performance as well.

And the reason GPA does not need to be an expendable commodity (resource) needed to live is because it's an are you ready for this..... analogy

_

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Ok, lets say one man is more endowed than another man...hmmm, should he chop off a few inches and give it to a less endowed man? I think this analogy is much more fitting.

polaris_x wrote:

if you have 18 letters in your name ... should you give some to people who have less?

You guys are brightening my day by making me laugh so much.

inmytree

Blockhead wrote:

inmytree wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

Those of you for wealth redistribution, It should only be fair that students GPA's also be redsitributed. Right?

right...

It's interesting how you take that sarcastic approach. Are you of the position that it's not fair with 'well because I worked for it and they didn't'. Surely you have a better argument for GPA redistribution not being fair?

I was agreeing with your well thought out premise...

why so angry...?

inmytree

Blockhead wrote:

GPA is an idication of performance, Wealth is an indication of performance as well.

And the reason GPA does not need to be an expendable commodity (resource) needed to live is because it's an are you ready for this..... analogy

you're making perfect sense...

bravo....

Blockhead

_ wrote:

_ wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

How is GPA redistribution not similar to wealth redistribution? Helping people out that may not have been given the same advantages in life, or may have issues that make it more difficult for them to succeed in the setting?

The only real differences I see between the two is that 1 is finite (GPA) and it can have large implications for determining other outcomes, such as grad school. Although one could argue that for income too (whether you get invited to a certain country club, getting a certain credit card, investment opportunities, etc.) there are similar implications...

GPA is a DESCRIPTION of one's performance in school. Money is a RESOURCE.

Here's a GPA analogy for you:

I have blonde hair & blue eyes, and they bring me a certain amount of privilge. Only a minority of people in this country have (natural ) blonde hair & blue eyes. My appearance is described on various documents, like my driver's license. "Redistributing" people's GPAs would be like "redistributing" the hair & eye colors on driver's licenses, saying some people have different appearances than they really have. But this isn't a redistribution of the attributes that bring me privilege - only a misrepresentation of them. If you wanted to affect resource allocation, you should change the system that privileges people with blonde hair & blue eyes - and good GPAs.

The analogous redistribution regarding money would be to lie on people's W-2s. You're still not redistributing the wealth; you're just redistributing the description of the wealth.

Hair color is not performance based...

inmytree

Blockhead wrote:

Hair color is not performance based...

gold...pure gold...!!!

JonnyPistachio

Blockhead wrote:

Hair color is not performance based...

wealth isn't always performance based either.
Also, giving up GPA points wouldn't really help feed hungry kids, now would it?

_

Blockhead wrote:

_ wrote:

_ wrote:

GPA is a DESCRIPTION of one's performance in school. Money is a RESOURCE.

Here's a GPA analogy for you:

I have blonde hair & blue eyes, and they bring me a certain amount of privilge. Only a minority of people in this country have (natural ) blonde hair & blue eyes. My appearance is described on various documents, like my driver's license. "Redistributing" people's GPAs would be like "redistributing" the hair & eye colors on driver's licenses, saying some people have different appearances than they really have. But this isn't a redistribution of the attributes that bring me privilege - only a misrepresentation of them. If you wanted to affect resource allocation, you should change the system that privileges people with blonde hair & blue eyes - and good GPAs.

The analogous redistribution regarding money would be to lie on people's W-2s. You're still not redistributing the wealth; you're just redistributing the description of the wealth.

Hair color is not performance based...

Hair color written on my driver's license is a description, GPA is a description as well.

And the reason the hair color does not need to be performance based is because it's an are you ready for this..... analogy

Blockhead

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

Hair color is not performance based...

wealth isn't always performance based either.
Also, giving up GPA points wouldn't really help feed hungry kids, now would it?

Yeah, we need to let all those inner city kids working their asses off to pay for college know that their GPA is not directly related to their survival or that of their children.

You raise an excellent point that speaks about excessive GPA. Why should some have additional employment opportunities out of school due to their GPA? That is not equal/fair. I can't believe those greedy ****s want to force people with GPA's too low to graduate to try to survive on a mcdonalds income (if they're lucky).

Blockhead

_ wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

_ wrote:

Here's a GPA analogy for you:

I have blonde hair & blue eyes, and they bring me a certain amount of privilge. Only a minority of people in this country have (natural ) blonde hair & blue eyes. My appearance is described on various documents, like my driver's license. "Redistributing" people's GPAs would be like "redistributing" the hair & eye colors on driver's licenses, saying some people have different appearances than they really have. But this isn't a redistribution of the attributes that bring me privilege - only a misrepresentation of them. If you wanted to affect resource allocation, you should change the system that privileges people with blonde hair & blue eyes - and good GPAs.

The analogous redistribution regarding money would be to lie on people's W-2s. You're still not redistributing the wealth; you're just redistributing the description of the wealth.

Hair color is not performance based...

Hair color written on my driver's license is a description, GPA is a description as well.

And the reason the hair color does not need to be performance based is because it's an are you ready for this..... analogy

and this is realated to what again... So again you can't give me a straight anwswer... What a suprise

EdsonNascimento

polaris_x wrote:

how about this - you are stranded in a remote area with no chance of rescue for a while (months) ... someone kills a deer ... should he:

1. eat what he wants and let the rest go to waste?
2. share it with other stranded people?

I've seen this before (you've put it in at least 2 threads I've seen). It's not as clever as you think.

They should, at their own discretion do one or more of the following:
1) See what goods and/or services the other person can provide them in exchange for the meat. You are a doctor and promise to resusscitate me should I be drowning? Excellent, here's half my meat. You can build me a shelter to get out of the rain? Great, here's a third of my meat. You want to sit around and say I'm being unfair and should give you some meat? Ha, ha - here's how I killed the deer. Go kill one yourself.
2) Adopt a pet and feed it.
3) Give it away for nothing

But the one thing they should absolutely 100% NOT do is have it forcefully taken from them with no value in return (tangible or otherwise as they deem value).

_

Blockhead wrote:

_ wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

Hair color is not performance based...

Hair color written on my driver's license is a description, GPA is a description as well.

And the reason the hair color does not need to be performance based is because it's an are you ready for this..... analogy

and this is realated to what again... So again you can't give me a straight anwswer... What a suprise

Huh?? :? I don't even know what you mean by that.

_

EdsonNascimento wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

how about this - you are stranded in a remote area with no chance of rescue for a while (months) ... someone kills a deer ... should he:

1. eat what he wants and let the rest go to waste?
2. share it with other stranded people?

I've seen this before (you've put it in at least 2 threads I've seen). It's not as clever as you think.

They should, at their own discretion do one or more of the following:
1) See what goods and/or services the other person can provide them in exchange for the meat. You are a doctor and promise to resusscitate me should I be drowning? Excellent, here's half my meat. You can build me a shelter to get out of the rain? Great, here's a third of my meat. You want to sit around and say I'm being unfair and should give you some meat? Ha, ha - here's how I killed the deer. Go kill one yourself.
2) Adopt a pet and feed it.
3) Give it away for nothing

But the one thing they should absolutely 100% NOT do is have it forcefully taken from them with no value in return (tangible or otherwise as they deem value).

And should the doctor take that same approach when you are drowning?

Also, taxes are not taken by force.

JonnyPistachio

Blockhead wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

Hair color is not performance based...

wealth isn't always performance based either.
Also, giving up GPA points wouldn't really help feed hungry kids, now would it?

Yeah, we need to let all those inner city kids working their asses off to pay for college know that their GPA is not directly related to their survival or that of their children.

You raise an excellent point that speaks about excessive GPA. Why should some have additional employment opportunities out of school due to their GPA? That is not equal/fair. I can't believe those greedy ****s want to force people with GPA's too low to graduate to try to survive on a mcdonalds income (if they're lucky).

I have no clue what you're saying.

But the more I think about it, if you want to use your analogy, sure lets try it...
If I had a 3.25 GPA, and we were to use a proportional scale to take away points and redistribute to the lower GPA recipients in regards to welfare amounts, lets see here...

I would have a about a 3.2 GPA after the reduction. So, yeah, I'd be willing to give it up if it helped someone else. And I know what you're probably gonna say: they didn't deserve it because it was a reward, and it will make them ill qualified for life/job.

polaris_x

EdsonNascimento wrote:

I've seen this before (you've put it in at least 2 threads I've seen). It's not as clever as you think.

They should, at their own discretion do one or more of the following:
1) See what goods and/or services the other person can provide them in exchange for the meat. You are a doctor and promise to resusscitate me should I be drowning? Excellent, here's half my meat. You can build me a shelter to get out of the rain? Great, here's a third of my meat. You want to sit around and say I'm being unfair and should give you some meat? Ha, ha - here's how I killed the deer. Go kill one yourself.
2) Adopt a pet and feed it.
3) Give it away for nothing

But the one thing they should absolutely 100% NOT do is have it forcefully taken from them with no value in return (tangible or otherwise as they deem value).

... it's not meant to be clever ... it's a response to an absurd analogy with one equally as absurd ...

i do love how you libertarians like to use force to describe taxation ... i get it tho ... you guys only care about yourself and are more than prepared to go it alone ... i have no problem with that philosophy in general ... i would just rather be part of a collective ...